Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sunita Prajapati vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prajapati on 2 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
2026:CGHC:10728-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 317 of 2025
Smt. Sunita Prajapati W/o Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prajapati Aged About 36
Years R/o Laxmi Patel, Ravanbhatha, Near, Shitla Mandir, Supela,
Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) Mobile No. 7869389814
... Appellant
versus
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prajapati S/o Maheshwar Aged About 40 Years R/o
Imt Hospital Khursipar Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) Mobile No.
9584594102
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate
Digitally
signed by
VASANT
VASANT
Division Bench
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.03
15:35:21
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
(02.03.2026)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the 3 rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Case No.779/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. Brief facts of this case is that the respondent - Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prajapati has preferred an application under Section 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court for grant of decree of divorce of the marriage between the parties which was performed on dated 21/05/1998. The appellant - Smt Sunita Prajapati has filed reply of the application u/s 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Further, the appellant has also filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. The respondent herein has filed reply of the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court after considering the application and its reply, dismissed the application filed application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by the appellant on 11/07/2025. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Family Court has rejected the application on the ground that the appellant is receiving Rs.15,000/- per month by order dated 27/02/2024 in which Rs.5,000/- per month has been adjusted which was granted as an interim amount in case of domestic violence. The Family Court should have considered the facts that the respondent has submitted an affidavit with respect to the details of income in which the income shown as Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He would further submit that the Family Court should have considered the fact that Section 24 of HMA, 1955 governs the expenses occurring during the pendency of proceedings under HMA & these expenses include court fees, travelling expenses & other related expenditure. It is need to mention here that at present she is residing in her parental home at village Gharawal, P.O. Bhupgarh, District Gorakhpur (U.P.) and she has to come to attend the proceeding from Uttar Pradesh. The Family Court should have considered the fact that maintenance awarded u/s 24 of HMA is temporary in nature and it is only to provide financial support only during the pendency of legal proceedings, and the Family Court in a very casual manner rejected the application on the ground that the appellant is already receiving Rs.15,000/-per month granted in other proceedings, but while considering this aspect, the Family Court has not considered the fact that those amount cannot be taken in the present case as the present proceeding which is pending before the learned Family Court requires independent amount of maintenance which is being used in the pending proceedings. It is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 11/07/2025 passed in Case No.779/2023 by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (C.G.).
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record.
5. From the application itself, it is evident that the appellant claimed to be a homemaker without independent income and sought Rs.5,000/- per month towards litigation expenses and Rs.40,000/- as lump sum litigation cost, alleging that the respondent-husband, a Doctor and Director of IMI Hospital, earns approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per month. However, the learned Family Court, upon consideration of the income disclosure and material placed before it, recorded a finding that : the respondent herein is educationally qualified (BAMS), he is engaged in employment and earning approximately Rs.30,000-40,000/- per month, and she is already receiving monetary support pursuant to existing judicial orders, namely: Rs.15,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and Rs.5,000/- per month under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Family Court therefore concluded that the appellant cannot be said to be without sufficient means to maintain herself or to prosecute the litigation.
6. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a need-based provision and becomes operative only when the appellant spouse establishes absence of independent income sufficient for support and litigation expenses.
7. In the present case, the record indicates that the appellant has earning capacity and is in fact earning, and her subsistence is already secured through existing maintenance orders. Mere disparity in income between spouses cannot by itself justify grant of interim maintenance when the statutory requirement of financial incapacity is not established.
8. The Family Court has thus exercised its discretion on the basis of financial disclosures and surrounding circumstances. The reasoning recorded reflects a proper appreciation of the object of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and does not suffer from perversity, arbitrariness, or misapplication of law. No material has been shown before this Court to demonstrate that the appellant lacks sufficient means or that denial of further interim maintenance has resulted in any denial of access to justice. However, the question of litigation expenses has not been considered by the Family Court as such the Family Court is directed to consider the question of litigation expenses payable to the appellant herein.
9. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the appeal is dismissed subject to the observation for considering question of litigation expenses.
10. Accordingly, the order under challenge is affirmed and the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
11. However, the learned Family Court is directed to make an endeavour to expedite the proceedings of Case No.799/2023 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge Judge
Vasant